Bug 662269 (dpic)

Might I suggest cleaning up the spec file with e.g. by replacing the long example building bit with a simple

# Add current directory to path
export PATH=$PATH:`pwd`
# Build examples
pushd examples
for target in epic pstricks pgf pdf mfpic overlay metapost; do
 make $target
 mv tst.ps example-$target.ps
done
for target in psfrag postscript; do
 make $target
 mv tst.ps example-$target.ps
 mv diag.eps example-$target.eps
done
for target in xfig; do
 make $target
 mv diag.fig example-$target.fig
done
# Clean up temporary files
rm tst-mfpic.* tst.* diag.*
# Return to parent directory
popd

***

If you want to add numbering, you can do it with e.g.

n=0
for target in epic pstricks pgf pdf mfpic overlay metapost; do
 let n=n+1
 make $target
 mv tst.ps example-${n}-${target}.ps
done

The numbers are for which diag and tst file they were generated from. I suppose since the Makefile is shipped with the examples, which sources the examples were build from is more obvious.

Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec
SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2010.12.08-2.fc14.src.rpm

*** Bug 530755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec
SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2012.02.12-1.fc18.src.rpm

dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-2012.02.12.tar.gz 0640L
dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic.spec 0640L
dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-no-strip-binaries.patch 0640L
dpic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpic
dpic-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

I note there's a 2012.04.23 release out.  (Welcome to the treadmill).  This seems pretty simple, though.

Of note: the README file indicates that dpicdoc.pdf is Creative Commons attribution 3.0 (CC-BY).

The examples package comes out completely empty for me; just two directories (/usr/share/dpic and /usr/share/dpic/examples).  I also note that the examples package doesn't seem to require the main package; I'm not sure if that's intentional.

(In reply to comment #5)
> I note there's a 2012.04.23 release out.  (Welcome to the treadmill).  This
> seems pretty simple, though.

Yeah, updating is easy, just need to *do* it.

> Of note: the README file indicates that dpicdoc.pdf is Creative Commons
> attribution 3.0 (CC-BY).

Thanks. Updated.

> The examples package comes out completely empty for me; just two directories
> (/usr/share/dpic and /usr/share/dpic/examples).  I also note that the examples
> package doesn't seem to require the main package; I'm not sure if that's
> intentional.

No, it isn't. Seems I was mistaken in how install -d works. Requires added as well.

Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic.spec
SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/dpic/dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.src.rpm

% lintmock fedora-rawhide-x86_64
dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-no-strip-binaries.patch 0640L
dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic.spec 0640L
dpic.src: W: strange-permission dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz 0640L
dpic.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dpic
dpic-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine.  (Though I wonder why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions.  I guess it could be your umask.)

The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012 now.  Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished.  (Last I checked it was waiting on just two license issues.)  Anyway, that's 

Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license.

The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples" directory is repeated:
  /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README
I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity.


* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  c79dc98fe3c46e2c79a260b54c5e429b2c587ed80edd20699990bbd462914b8a  
   dpic-2012.04.23.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package (at least one license text is in the README 
   file)
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  dpic-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
   dpic = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
   dpic(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
  =
   (none special)

  dpic-examples-2012.04.23-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
   dpic-examples = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
   dpic-examples(x86-64) = 2012.04.23-1.fc18
  =
   dpic = 2012.04.23

* no bundled libraries.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

(In reply to comment #7)
> Indeed, I get those rpmlint complaints and they're all fine.  (Though I wonder
> why all of the stuff in the srpm has such odd permissions.  I guess it could be
> your umask.)

Yeah, I use 027 as my umask.

> The "texlive2010" bit is a little odd since that project is on to texlive2012
> now.  Hopefully one day soon that project will actually be finished.  (Last I
> checked it was waiting on just two license issues.)  Anyway, that's 

…an incomplete sentence ;) . I didn't know texlive2012 was that close. I know jnovy fedorapeople repo hasn't been updated in a long time, but I haven't seen any reviews going by.

> Since the package contains files of multiple licenses, you'll need at least a
> comment in the spec indicating which file is under which license.

Ah, yeah.

> The examples package has a somewhat odd directory structure; the "examples"
> directory is repeated:
>   /usr/share/dpic/examples/examples/README
> I also wonder if the documentation for the examples should be packaged as
> documentation, though that's starting to descend to absurdity.

Hmm, I'll get rid of the duplicate examples thing. Must have skimmed that when looking at the path lists.

Did I miss an update?

Nope, I've put off the license inspection mainly :/ . I'll try to figure some time in for going through my bugzilla backlog in the next week or so.

Ben it has been a few years since your last comment on this ticket.

Are you intending to progress this?

As per policy if there is no response within a week the bug will be closed so that others may create a fresh review request if interested.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

It's been over a week with no response from the requestor to the NeedsInfo flag.

Closing as per policy.